woodpecker_get_topology

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (graph of services, statuses, dependencies), the status enum, and the meaning of monitoring='MISSING'. This provides good behavioral insight without hiding important details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first clearly states the function and output, the second adds usage guidance and additional detail on status values. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place. Well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains what is returned (graph with status and dependencies), key fields (status enum, monitoring flag), and when to use it. This is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% by default. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not mention any parameters (correctly).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool returns the materialized service dependency graph with each service's status and dependencies. It lists status enum values and mentions the monitoring='MISSING' flag, providing specific detail beyond a generic statement. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the first call for causal structure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises 'Call first to establish the causal structure before diagnosing,' which gives clear when-to-use guidance relative to other diagnostic tools. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context with sibling tools implies the flow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.